Skip to main content

DAW editing software

i have enjoyed your posts on RAP for years. i am curious, do you regularly use any editing software (not a splicing block and a razor :-) ) if so what do you use ?

Harry

Comments

Member Mon, 03/26/2001 - 22:45
I think most all Posters on this topic would do well to try the test Mixerman proposed if you have not - and I suspect most have not based on the considerable amount of apparent conjecture.

I also think Roger Nichols is more than just theoretically correct. He probably made some tests to base his statement on.

I took some drum tracks I had lying around on a DA88 Tape (8 tracks at 44/16) and made 7 mixes from them. The mixes were done with Cakewalk PA9, Samplitude2496, Vegas LE, CubaseVST32 5.0(demo), an O2R, a Soundscape Mixtreme PCI mixer card in my PC, and an ANALOG Allen & Heath MixWizard 16:2(which I mixed into WaveLab 3.0). No panning, no gain on any of them.

I ended up with seven 44/16 wav files that I burned to CD to trot around and listen to.

I listened to them on a myriad of systems for hours and could never tell any difference between them - because there pretty much wasn't any. The good news is that neither my ears nor my brain was willing to be fooled into "finding" a difference. The emperor was naked, pretty much.

Check it out – all the digital mixes I did are the identical waveform – all the stereo mix wav files are identical!!!! I couldn’t hear anything different at all after wasting hours listening to them, so I pulled them into Samplitude and compared them two at a time – lined them up sample for sample and then flipped the phase on one pair. Dead silence – perfect cancellation. Even the O2R and Mixtreme Hardware Card mixes were the same as Cakewalk, Cubase, Vegas, and Samplitude. Any pair mixed together would cancel out completely with the phase flipped on one of them. Of course, the Allen & Heath analog mix was different – but very, very, very close - inaudible differences. And the waveform was surprisingly close, too. Maybe for another $900K or so, it would have been dead on as well.

Whaddaya make o’ that?

If there's any corruption happening on the digital summing stereo buses, all these guys are in collusion with their math and the people at A&H are apparently trying to copy them.

Guest Fri, 03/02/2001 - 03:37
Well the easiest for me is still the razor blade...one of my favorite Ron Saint-Germain quotes is: {points to himself and says} "Pro", {picks up a razor blade and says} "Tools". :D

I don't regularly use any of that as an 'editing software'. On occasion I've worked on 'Digital Performer', but mostly as a 'storage format', I don't really know the "ins and outs" nor all the capabilites of the software.

If you go over to DAW World...Chris Lannon moderates the 'Digital Performer' group...he's my 'D-P' guru...without his guidance (or a couple other people he's trained), I'd be more lost than Hansel and Grettle. :roll:

I've used 'Pro-sTools' on occasion, again, I'm not a 'Pro-sTools' operator. If I need something cut, moved, pasted, fucked with, a 'Pro-sTools' operator is the person who accomplishes that task.

To me, it's just a cheap form of information storage, not a major 'editing and reconstruction' device. I still 'punch' mistakes on it just like an analog deck...preferring performance over manipulation. But I'm old...so don't let it interfere with the way you work. You asked...

I'd be curious how more 'digitally saavy' people handle this stuff, and other than cost, what they find to be the major conveniences/reasons why they find it a superior format to tape.

Member Sat, 03/03/2001 - 12:25
i certainly don't prefer the protools to even an adat and a mackie. i feel like a zombie staring at a screen all day instead of gawking at the hot chic bass player. when i have my way i like to work on analog (studer / api) then depending on the end result either do alot of protools editing or just minor tweaks. have you ever comped a vocal with protools !!! it is outstanding.

i think analog is here to stay for a bit longer..but one day, digital will be better.


just not yet.

Harry

oh yeah, when is the last time you had to wait for 45 minutes to load up a 2" reel ?

Guest Sat, 03/03/2001 - 14:26
Originally posted by H Evans:
when is the last time you had to wait for 45 minutes to load up a 2" reel ?

About a year and a half ago...blew a main transistor thingy on the the transport of an A-800. It wouldn't pass tape for a couple hours while the tech was found, the part was located, and the replacement made.

I made $80- playing pool with the drummer...it was 'positive downtime' from my perspective.

alphajerk Sat, 03/03/2001 - 19:25
what exactly is the point of this post?

there is just NO comparison editing between the two. i can digitally edit circles around the fastest PRO splicer. i dont wait 45 minutes for digital files to load up either. does it matter?

fuck no. im with fletcher, i will punch mistakes rather than edit if possible. but i just pulled the pitch of ONE quarter note up a semitone on an entire solo that was otherwise great... and trust me i had the guitarist try to punch it several times before telling him to come into the control room and brought the note up... 15 seconds later the note was in tune without compromising the feel or solo.

for the most part im way too lazy to use it as a "major 'editing and reconstruction' device"... thats a 2x4 upside the head of the one fucking up :D i just use it for tucks and implants, otherwise my DAW runs just like a R2R except you dont have rewind time or roll lag.

alphajerk Sun, 03/04/2001 - 14:48
technically, once its digital its digital and simply running it out independantly @ unity all the DAWs should sound exactly the same.

ole roger nichols goes as far as to state that the "summing" of the channels should be exactly the same as well which to me says that a $600 DAW on a $2k computer will sound exactly the same as a $1M digital console [sans EQ/DYN/FX]


as to the reason why you think analog board sum the parts together better is because of the inherent distortion the summing creates. distortion of the analog order seems to be pleasing to some peoples ears.

Mixerman Sun, 03/04/2001 - 15:35
Originally posted by alphajerk:
technically, once its digital its digital and simply running it out independantly @ unity all the DAWs should sound exactly the same.

ole roger nichols goes as far as to state that the "summing" of the channels should be exactly the same as well which to me says that a $600 DAW on a $2k computer will sound exactly the same as a $1M digital console [sans EQ/DYN/FX]


as to the reason why you think analog board sum the parts together better is because of the inherent distortion the summing creates. distortion of the analog order seems to be pleasing to some peoples ears.


Not true. Do the A/B yourself. The difference is drastic. Don't you think I'd rather just mix internally in Pro Tools if I could? It's not even close. I'm all for making life easier, even if it costs me some sonics, but not when it dessimates it.

Try the comparison.

Mixerman

alphajerk Sun, 03/04/2001 - 18:28
[sarcasm]yea, next time i use a large frame digital console i'll do that[/sarcasm]

im just trying to get to the bottom of that statement made by mr. digital. not that i agree with it.

personally, at this point in time i would run all my digi out direct into a highend analog console to take advantage of some great analog toys for mixdown if budget werent an issue with some fantastic DA's.

and sonically maybe so but people who actually buy the shit couldnt care less if it was mixed on a Neve or in a DAW, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

its all about the MUSIC

Mixerman Sun, 03/04/2001 - 20:10
Originally posted by alphajerk:
[sarcasm]yea, next time i use a large frame digital console i'll do that[/sarcasm]

im just trying to get to the bottom of that statement made by mr. digital. not that i agree with it.

personally, at this point in time i would run all my digi out direct into a highend analog console to take advantage of some great analog toys for mixdown if budget werent an issue with some fantastic DA's.

and sonically maybe so but people who actually buy the shit couldnt care less if it was mixed on a Neve or in a DAW, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

its all about the MUSIC


You don't have to convince me it's about the music. But mixing is what makesthe music. And if you're mixing through a system that bogs down, then you're fucked.

Forget about a big console, or even what you think is a pro console. I never said anything about that. Try the conmparison with a Mackie, I don't care, it's going to still be a staggerring difference.

Again, I agree, it's about the music, but the music isn't a recording. And we make recordings. A recording is a medium in which to present music. If you have a great song in a shitty presentation, then you have weakened the song.

If you have a shitty song in a great presentation, it's still a shitty song. The great presentation may have raised the bar, or distracted the listener momentarily from the fact that it's a shitty song, but it still a shitty song.

So our job is to present the great song in a great way. That doesn't mean that great sound is a requirement. However, there is a difference between great sound, and a recording with little to no impact. That can be the result of a bogged down 2-bus from a computer.

You're right, most people don't care whther something sounds great or not. But people will react to the presentation. How many times have you heard a song or a guitar, and turned it up because it got your attention. Well that wasn't the song, that was the recroding of the song that got your attention.

I'm not arguing as an elitist here. Again, if I could mix straight out of Pro Tools without a console, without serious dessimation to the sound, then I would be very happy to.

You obviously think that there's no difference, but you've never even experimented with it. You are taking people at face value. Try taking 8 outputs of lets say drums from your DAW into a Mackie. No rides, and at the same gain that they were recorded at coming out of the computer. Compare that to the stereo output of your computer into the same Mackie.

Let us know your results.

Mixerman

Member Mon, 03/05/2001 - 13:53
Originally posted by Mixerman:
Forget about a big console, or even what you think is a pro console. I never said anything about that. Try the conmparison with a Mackie, I don't care, it's going to still be a staggerring difference.

Again, if I could mix straight out of Pro Tools without a console, without serious dessimation to the sound, then I would be very happy to.

You obviously think that there's no difference, but you've never even experimented with it. You are taking people at face value. Try taking 8 outputs of lets say drums from your DAW into a Mackie. No rides, and at the same gain that they were recorded at coming out of the computer. Compare that to the stereo output of your computer into the same Mackie.
Mixerman


Damn I should try that too....
In two weeks time I promised to mix the demo-cd of a friend's band... It's gonne be at a Pro Tools based budget studio, and the owner does al his mixing in the computer...
But now I'm gonne bring a small Allen & Heath mixer I still have at home and just root every track to a A&H channel...
So if what you said is true (and believe me I don't doubt it).. I can do all mixing automation internally, and just put all the A&H fader at the same level, and get a better mix to DAT (16bit..) than the 24-bit mix in the computer (dithered down to 16?)

Man... i never thought of that... I'm gonna try, and I'm gonne A/B....
Will get back on this subject?!

:)

GRTX
GIE

alphajerk Mon, 03/05/2001 - 14:23
i still think you are wrong. it DEFINATELY sounds better than a mackie. you think the mackie sounds better because of its inherent distortion.

and no they arent hearing the sonics, they are still hearing the guitar. trust me, i listen to plenty of songs i love with piss poor recording technique.

btw: i just released something done entirely on a computer thats catching plenty of peoples attention and not once have i heard "sounds like it was mixed on a computer, you should of used an analog board" but i have heard "that rocks man" dont believe me i can play you back my answering machine after it was on the radio the other day.

Mixerman Tue, 03/06/2001 - 01:16
Originally posted by alphajerk:
i still think you are wrong. it DEFINATELY sounds better than a mackie. you think the mackie sounds better because of its inherent distortion.

I hate Mackies. Fucking try it already, and stop arguing. That's the whole point, if a mackie beats the 2-bus of a computer, then...

and no they arent hearing the sonics, they are still hearing the guitar. trust me, i listen to plenty of songs i love with piss poor recording technique.

I'm not talking about piss poor recording technique. I'm talking about a shitty signal for your entire mix.

btw: i just released something done entirely on a computer thats catching plenty of peoples attention and not once have i heard "sounds like it was mixed on a computer, you should of used an analog board" but i have heard "that rocks man" dont believe me i can play you back my answering machine after it was on the radio the other day.

Oooh...you have something on the radio? I hope one day I get something on the radio.

The first thing anyone says, no matter how shitty it sounds when it's a hit is: "that song sounds great!". What else are they going to sat to you. "I can't believe that song was a hit with the shitty job you did, what did you do, mix that in a computer?" Cut me a break.

Try it. Then argue. If you try it, and you difer in opinion, fair enough. Right now, you're talking out your ass.

Mixerman

Mixerman Tue, 03/06/2001 - 01:41
BTW: The experiment is simple. There can be no rides internally within Pro Tools. The moment you do rides you fuck the sound. You can experiment with that too if you like. But here's the curent proposed experiment:

Run the outputs of drums to individual faders of your Mackie, or whatever board you have available. Run the stereo outputs of the computers 2-bus to 2 channels of the Mackie. Now it's a fair test. Because either way you're going through the Mackie.

Yes, I realize, normally you wouldn't take the stereo ouputs to a Mackie, BUT, if you do, then the Mackie is tainting both sounds equally, and you can properly exaluate the DIFFERENCE between the two. Remember 'control' from science class?

NO internal rides, unity gain, and make sure that as you A/B, the monitoring level is identical. You'll be amazed at how much shittier the stereo output will sound then the individual outputs.

Don't argue, Try.

Mixerman

alphajerk Tue, 03/06/2001 - 07:39
i have tried it, and i know and i think you are wrong... listen to the low mids and lows, if you arent hearing it, then your missing it. its the reason analog only sounds good on high dollar boards like an amek. ill take digital on anything over than a less than GOOD large frame anyday. dont kid yourself.

Dave McNair Tue, 03/06/2001 - 18:58
This is a topic I love to " get my post on".
There is no guestion that Pro Tools ect, can SAVE your ass and an otherwise great performance except for XYZ. Do I want to use it as my primary storage device? Hell no. Am I old fashioned? Maybe. I just think rock and roll, which is what I primarily record/produce, is an art form that has it's traditional boundries firmly entrenched in 24 track analog recording. The essence of rock and roll is not the endless manipulation that all too frequently occurs with ProTools. I guess what I'm saying is, IMNSHI, the amount of manipulation that is afforded in analog, is all I think can happen and still be truly R n R. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And while your at it, learn to play your instrument and write a decent fucking song.

Member Wed, 03/07/2001 - 06:39
Originally posted by John Sayers:
I can make that time up easily in saved rewind time. :roll:

that maybe true
however i work on both pro tools and 2" tape machines

the shuttle time arguement has always been an interesting one to me

what happens when your computer crashes
or you have to wait just a few seconds to load a plug-in
or you tell the band to hang while you edit
or you run out of disk space
or they randomly decide to work on a song they did last year and you have to upload it

i say....in comparison tape machines are faster and more productive.....just my oppinion

if you add up all the time you spen fucking with the computer what do you get
my answer: more time then it takes me to rewind push record and say "rollin"

cheers,
j.hall

Tom Cram Wed, 03/07/2001 - 07:14
This is an easy one.

>what happens when your computer crashes
This rarely happens to me, but when it does...you reboot. This takes about 5 minutes. Have them refill their coffee.

>or you have to wait just a few seconds to load a plug-in.
This takes just as long as adjusting pan, or EQ, or any other miniscule operation.

>or you tell the band to hang while you edit
When is the last time you had a band hang around while you cut tape? I never did.

>or you run out of disk space
With the low cost of hard drives, you should NEVER run out of disc space. Are you comparing it to the time it takes to change a reel?

>or they randomly decide to work on a song they did last year and you have to upload it
If it is on the big hard drive you bought for $300, it takes 2 minutes (or less) to upload. If it is on DVD-RAM (like mine) It takes 7 minutes. Again, compare to loading a new reel.

Once I switched over to digital, I was amazed at the reduction in wasted time doing scut-work. You still have to do scut-work, it's just faster.

Member Wed, 03/07/2001 - 14:19
Just curious.....

How many here actually know how to make a record without using a computer?

I'm really not very old, but I guess I'm "old school." NOTHING turns my stomach more than staring at a fucking computer monitor for endless hours. I'd much rather "touch" the music. Moving dedicated faders with my hands and turning and touching actual knobs. Physically moving my sounds with a patch cable and cutting the very tape on which the music exists. Is this really THAT unbelievable? The best recordings of all time were made this way.

I understand the conveniences of hd recording, I just don't dig it, personally. I guess I was a little out of line implying that if you use a computer based hd recording/editing system, you're not cool. To clarify, it is simply my opinion that if you use a computer based hd recording/editing system to record, you're not cool.

Maybe we should take this down to the bar. First round's on me......

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

alphajerk Wed, 03/07/2001 - 19:27
sounds to me like you simply have a difference of opinion.

and yes, i know how to record analog. and ive worked on large frame consoles and i hate the way to have to totally get up and move to make an adjustment not to mention just over 30 minutes of tape per reel, i can load up hours of HD's in seconds with removable drives. it doesnt bother me in the slightest to stare at a computer screen for hours on end. i can move quicker digitally with less thinking freeing up my mind for the music. i dont have to bother patching in a cable. there are many things i dont have to do anymore that gets in the way of making music. when you master the computer, it becomes VERY transparent to the user. while you fumble with tape, ive moved on to the next thing that needs my attention. before you get up to even reach for a knob, ive already adjusted it [in the sweet spot no less]. and we havent even gotten to the part if you need more than 23 tracks... or recall for that matter. i can quickly move about many songs while you are sort of stuck on one without a huge ordeal.

"To clarify, it is simply my opinion that if you use a computer based hd recording/editing system to record, you're not cool."

that kinda makes you pretty uncool. and close-minded.

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 03:21
The way you talk about fumbling with tape and not knowing how to deal with limited tracks makes me understand just where you're coming from. It's okay, Alph. You can do things your way, and I will do things my way. This is one of the things that give this business such diversity. Luckily, we don't need to interact with each other except for here, on this opinion board.

"that kinda makes you pretty uncool. and close-minded."

That is your opinion, and I accept it.

Oh yea, I only get 16 minutes out of a reel of 2".

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

Tom Cram Thu, 03/08/2001 - 05:54
This stuff doesn' have to get weird and personal. It's just different ways of doing the same thing. I don't think we are that far apart.

Anyway, I interned and worked in analog for years. I used to consider myself a tape samurai. At the same time Ptools was just starting to come out. The studio I worked in got one of the first ones available.

Guess who was assigned to learn it.

It could do some cool things but I was far, far from sold (I still edited on it though). I kept my eyes peeled for a digital system that would do what I wanted for 10 years. PARIS fit the bill quite nicely.

I have since gotten rid of my desk, built a studio in my house, and never looked back. By the way, my signal path is so much cleaner now. Mic into pre onto disk...done!

alphajerk Thu, 03/08/2001 - 07:02
i didnt say i fumbled with tape and spent a majority of my recording so far limited to far less than 23 tracks so i more than know how to deal with limitations. i said while YOU fumbled with tape... before you even found your chinamarker to mark the beat, i have it DONE digitally. im quick as shit with a razor but im a LOT quicker with a mouse.

cool is WHAT you do, not what you do it with.

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 07:07
Originally posted by David Goodermuth:
Just curious.....

How many here actually know how to make a record without using a computer?

I'm really not very old, but I guess I'm "old school." NOTHING turns my stomach more than staring at a fucking computer monitor for endless hours. I'd much rather "touch" the music. Moving dedicated faders with my hands and turning and touching actual knobs. Physically moving my sounds with a patch cable and cutting the very tape on which the music exists. Is this really THAT unbelievable? The best recordings of all time were made this way.

I understand the conveniences of hd recording, I just don't dig it, personally. I guess I was a little out of line implying that if you use a computer based hd recording/editing system, you're not cool. To clarify, it is simply my opinion that if you use a computer based hd recording/editing system to record, you're not cool.



audio is not visual

i have made plenty of records, EP's, demos
completely in pro tools

i have done the same with 2" 24 track and pro tolls together

and the same for staying analog the whole way

just a prefrence i guess
for my personal work habits.....tape is better for me

the time i spend rewinding and changing reels
doesn't seem to bother anyone

i still work on protools everyday
and i like it less and less everyday

audio is not visual
that's my story and i'm stickn' to it,
j.hall :)

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 10:47
Well, these are pretty lame justifications for using digital over analog, but here goes some responses anyway...



>what happens when your computer crashes
This rarely happens to me, but when it does...you reboot. This takes about 5 minutes. Have them refill their coffee.


What do you do when you forgot to save your last 50 edits or so and the computer crashes?

It's happened to me before and it's not because I'm cavalier about frequent saves.


If it is on the big hard drive you bought for $300, it takes 2 minutes (or less) to upload. If it is on DVD-RAM (like mine) It takes 7 minutes. Again, compare to loading a new reel.



About 2 minutes the last time I checked.


Once I switched over to digital, I was amazed at the reduction in wasted time doing scut-work. You still have to do scut-work, it's just faster.


Do you have time for conversation at all with the client or is that done away in the digital domain as well.

Again, lame, lame, lame.

How about... Analog sounds better for the music I'm doing. Pretty tough to argue that one.

Tom Cram Thu, 03/08/2001 - 11:22
I'm absolutely certain that I wasn't "justifying" anything. I'm also absolutely certain I wasn't recommending one format over the other. In fact I mentioned that they were two different ways of doing the same thing.

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Here's another analog analogy;

In the early days of automation, snapshots got lost, frequently. What did you do? You redid the mix, that's what. Or, you lost your mix notes, what did you do? You redid the mix. Analog or digital, shit happens.

As far as the talking to the client comment is concerned, I don't get it. Because I use a computer I can't communicate? :roll:

alphajerk Thu, 03/08/2001 - 11:36
"How about... Analog sounds better for the music I'm doing. Pretty tough to argue that one."

more like analog sounds better with the sonic mistakes you make. dont make the mistakes in the first place. analog is a crutch. i just did a recording that the band complimented how good their guitar and drums sounded [in fact the best sound they said had been put down to date] and these are from guys who usually record analog.

its the nut behind the wheel. not the medium.

alphajerk Thu, 03/08/2001 - 13:08
im not saying someone else cant get it but dont blame the medium, blame the operator. this has got to be one of the most ignorant and closeminded threads i have read EVER. im just sick of this elitist attitude from people who use analog [and it IS a giant crutch of a medium] thinking how cool they really arent. its like people who still drive around camaros thinking they are cool but the fact is they are outdated rednecks.

besides, i would never step inside ardent because i dont believe in their ideology. even though it IS the label side and not the studio side it is still the same. too many other world class studios to give my business to if that is what i need.

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 13:43
Originally posted by alphajerk:
im not saying someone else cant get it but dont blame the medium, blame the operator. this has got to be one of the most ignorant and closeminded threads i have read EVER. im just sick of this elitist attitude from people who use analog [and it IS a giant crutch of a medium] thinking how cool they really arent. its like people who still drive around camaros thinking they are cool but the fact is they are outdated rednecks.



if it is so ignorant of a topic why do you keep posting

if you are saying anolog is a crutch in regards to:
wow
flutter
distortion
compression
transient response......etc

that's cool cause tape has all those inherent problems
altohough those are the things i like about it

it is imperfect just like the human ear
and the brain that decifers it

maybe you're right
this topic is shit
i just enjoy all the different angles people have on it

i am stuck working on pro tools every day
i get headaches from staring at a CRT all day
my vision is getting worse from all the gama radiation hitting my eyes

just rambling on......
j.hall

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 13:51
I think a better analogy would be a fully restored '64 Corvette. I wouldn't be caught dead in a Camaro.

Alph, kick back and relax a bit. Rock and Roll really isn't about how fast you can get a sound. And you may be surprised to know that there are people here who are almost as gifted and talented as you obviously are - computer or not.

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 14:02
yeah it always gets that way in these DAW /analog threads. The dudes that are freaked over new technology first start out smooth and end up ranting ;) they love to insult. It used to irratate me but now after seeing a paticular member do his same bla bla hehe I find it more entertaining now!

Wait for a few more DAW guys to climb on board this PRO WORLD debate and then it gets ugly. rotflmfo ;)

alphajerk Thu, 03/08/2001 - 15:05
i didnt say people here weren't gifted and talented as well, i said [several times] that it ISNT the medium but the guy using whatever medium. and it isnt the digital users here who have this sick elitist attitude.

so you work your way, ill work mine.

and i wouldnt be driving a corvette around either... then you just look like you are having a midlife crisis.

as to why i said this thread is ignorant because the topic is about using digital editing systems and not for expounding the machismo of analog, there are just better things to use a razor blade on.

Member Thu, 03/08/2001 - 20:59
I just wanted to comment on the point raised a while back about the mix bus signal degradation issue. I think this may have been true until pretty recently since the newest DAW software is using 32bit floating point formats. This makes a big difference in the sound of any signal subjected to processing. I happen to be a fan of analog style recording and have had the pleasure of tracking on some very nice Neve consoles but I am still turned on by the possibilities which the new technologies present. This stuff is in it's infancy but the advantages are obvious, I can put together a 48 track studio in a laptop computer with the current available hardware, and record at 24/96. It's just too good to ignore.

Tags

x